HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.01.24.MM Commission Packet - Zenith Retail Ventures - 1116 E Oakland Ave with agendaLansing City Clerk’s Office Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 517-483-4131 517-377-0068 FAX www.lansingmi.gov/clerk city.clerk@lansingmi.gov
City of Lansing Medical Marihuana Commission Regular Meeting Friday, January 24, 2020 2:00 PM
2500 S Washington Avenue
City Clerk’s Training Room Meeting Agenda
1. Call to Order/Introductions
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes from 01-10-2020
4. Public Comment on Agenda Items
5. Commission Appeal Hearings
Zenith Retail Ventures I LLC – 1116 East Oakland Avenue
6. New Business & Updates
7. Public Comment
8. Adjournment
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
Timeline
Zenith Retail Ventures
1116 E Oakland Ave
Lansing, Michigan 48912
June 26, 2019 – Application submitted ................................................................... 2
July 1, 2019 – Department review of applications begins
July 25, 2019 – Distance Maps Created ................................................................. 11
August 13, 2019 – Density Maps Created ............................................................. 12
August 15, 2019 – Notice of Potential Zoning Issue Sent ...................................... 18
October 29, 2019 – Score & Rank Denial Letter Sent ............................................ 22
November 12, 2019 – Hearing Officer Appeal submitted ...................................... 26
December 3, 2019 – Second Score & Rank Second Denial Letter Sent .................. 82
December 3, 2019 – Commission Hearing Date Letter Sent .................................. 81
November 7, 2019 – Commission Appeal Submitted .......................................... 100
Exhibits C & H were removed from the Hearing Officer Appeal because they
contained information which was not included in the section of the application being
evaluated.
Exhibits are now marked with the section they were submitted under. Please refer
to affirmations on page 11-12 of this packet for affirmation regarding consideration
of documents submitted.
1
-2-2
-3-3
-4-4
-5-5
-6-6
-7-7
-8-8
-9-9
-10-10
-11-11
-12-12
-13-13
-14-14
-15-15
-16-16
-17-17
-18-18
August 15, 2019
Zenith Retail Ventures I LLC
c/o Jacob Leebove
1848 Long Lake Shores Dr.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
It has been determined that the proposed Provisioning Center to be located 1116 E Oakland Ave is within
five hundred feet of another proposed Provisioning Center. Per Lansing City Ordinance Chapter
1300.13(a)(2), no medical marihuana provisioning center shall be located within 500 feet another medical
marijuana provisioning center.
Chapter 1300.18(a) states that an applicant who does not meet the requirements of 1300.13(a)(1) or (2) may
seek a variance from those requirements by submitting with their application a written application to the
Board of Zoning Appeals and paying a fee set by Council resolution.
Presently, no application for variance has been filed for this provisioning center location. If you wish to apply
for a variance, you must submit your appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) within fourteen (14) days
of the date of this letter.
Should you choose not to apply for a variance, or are denied a variance by the BZA, and both locations are
ranked in the top five (5) after scoring is completed and appeals are exhausted, the application with the
higher score will be selected.
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall either grant or deny the variance within a reasonable time. In determining
whether to grant or deny the variance, the BZA shall consider all of the following:
(I) The amount of time, if any, that the applicant has been operating in compliance with this
chapter at the present location;
(II) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to the land use and
public nuisance concerns in the surrounding neighborhood;
(III) The distance between the applicant’s location and any medical marihuana provisioning
center that is within 500 feet of the applicant’s location;
(IV) The need for a provisioning center at the location in order to provide the safe and efficient
access to medical marihuana within the City;
(V) The character of the structure and its surroundings; and
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
-19-19
(VI) The impact of the variance on the character of the structure’s surroundings and owners of
other properties in the vicinity.
For the BZA application and more information on the review process, please use the following link:
https://www.lansingmi.gov/337/Board-of-Zoning-Appeals
Should you have additional questions after reviewing the website, please contact Susan Stachowiak,
Zoning Administrator at 517-483-4085.
Chapter 1300 provides that should an applicant not receive a license, one-half of the application fee shall be
returned. This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
Lansing City Clerk
CC: City Attorney, Police Chief, Zoning Administrator, ED&P Director
-20-20
-21-21
-22-22
October 29, 2019
Zenith Retail Ventures 1 LLC c/o Jacob Leebove 1848 Long Lake Shores Drive Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant, The Lansing City Ordinance section 1300.6 discusses Provisioning Center license application evaluation. Your score of 74.00 out of 100 eliminates the possibility of scoring in the top five. Therefore, your application for licensure is denied.
Attached are your sub-scores based on the criteria posted on https://lansingmi.gov/1637/Medical-Marijuana and a brief
summary of determining factors for each sub-score. You will not be selected to receive a Provisioning Center license in the City of Lansing for the proposed business at 1116 E Oakland Avenue. You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure within 14 days of the date of this letter by filing with the City Clerk’s
Office a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal pursuant to Chapter 1300.15(c). Please note that initial appeals are referred to a hearing officer appointed by the City Clerk who will review the appeal and information submitted. The hearing officer will consider the information and make a recommendation to the City Clerk, who will make a decision on the appeal. To encourage efficiency, appeals will be conducted as a paper hearing without oral presentation. Please ensure that you include all information in your written appeal that you would like the hearing officer to consider. Appeals are limited to materials provided during the application process. No new application material will
be considered on appeal. Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be returned. This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC Lansing City Clerk
CC: City Attorney Lansing Police Department
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
-23-23
Total
Possible
Points
Zenith Retail Ventur-1116 E. Oakland
Applicant Address ---
#Category ---Score Location of material Scoring Insights
1 Ownership Structure 1 1 Org Structure doc, 1 pg., Org Docs folder Has ownership structure. 8/23/19
2 Organizational Chart 1 1 Org Chart, 10 pgs. in Org Doc folder Has org chart. 8/23/19
3 Worker Training Program 1 1 Worker Training Plan, 3 pages found in Other Req Docs folder Has plan. 8/23/19
4 Short and Long Term Goals and
Objectives 1 1 Goals, 4 pages found in Org Doc folder Has goals. 8/23/19
5 Community Outreach & Education 1 1 Outreach & Ed Plan, 6 pgs. found in Community Outreach folder Has plan. 8/23/19
6 Marketing, Advertising & Promotion 3 1 Marketing Two examples of minor minimization without detail. No budget. Less than the ideal number of minor minimization examples. 9/25/19
7 Tangible Capital Investment
Dollar Amount 5 4 1 page Investment Plan Stated TCI is $4,463,878.00 9/12/19
8 Tangible Capital Investment
Own/Lease 3 3 82 pages in Lease with Permission One of the stakeholders currently owns the building. 9/24/19
9 Tangible Capital Investment
Supporting Material 3 3 Support Documents-6 pages Has supporting materials which exceed stated/calculated TCI. 9/12/19
10 Financial Structure & Financing 2 1 Job Creation-Budget and Finance-Startup Costs GAAP operating budget attached. No startup budget. 8/22/19
11 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
12 Integration with Grows 4 2 Integrate One stakeholder has two conditionally approved grows in Lansing. 8/23/19
13 Charitable Plans & Strategies 4 4 Charity $100K per year with signed agreements. 8/23/19
14 Number of and job descriptions
for PC ONLY 3 2 Job Creation More than six (6) jobs at PC, no job descriptions given. 8/23/19
15 Healthcare 2 2 Job Creation Employer will provide medical and dental insurance. 8/23/19
16 Paid Time Off 1 1 Job Creation Employer will provide paid time off. 8/23/19
17 Retirement 1 1 Job Creation Employer will provide 401K program. 8/23/19
18 % of employees at $15+/hr 3 3 Job Creation 100% of employees will make $15+/hr. 8/23/19
19 Projected Annual Budget 2 2 Job Creation-Budget and Finance-Startup Costs Budget submitted with line item expenses and revenue. 8/22/19
20 Total COL Jobs 6 2 Job Creation 80 Lansing jobs at grow and processor. Considered definitive as one stakeholder has conditionally approved locations. Less than the ideal number of jobs, which is 201+. 8/23/19
Total Business Plan &
Job Creation 50 39
21 Financial Litigation History 1 1 Financial Litigation Form Has completed form(s) for all stakeholder(s). 9/24/19
22 Net Worth 3 2 106 Unduplicated pages in Finance Section
$100K in a bank account in the applicant’s name.Has solid proof of net worth.Doesn’t have full documentation of initial start-up and operating costs. No way to determine if net
worth is enough to cover those costs. 9/12/19
23 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
24 Stakeholder Experience
City of Lansing Businesses 1 1 Experience More than 5 years Lansing business ownership. 8/23/19
25 Stakeholder ExperienceRelevant Businesses 1 1 Experience More than 5 years relevant medical, retail or agricultural experience. 8/23/19
26 Stakeholder Experience
Medical Marijuana Business 1 1 Experience More than 5 years MM experience. 8/23/19
Total Financial Stability
&
Business Experience
10 9
27 Impact on Neighborhood
Distance Between PC & Residential Zoning 7 1 https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.
html?id=be0634345255438ba55b14c9b19e9f22
PC Property abuts Residential Zoning on 3 sides (N, E, W) 7/25/19
-24-24
28 Impact on NeighborhoodDensity of PCs 7 2
https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438ba55b14c9b19e9f22
Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a 1/2 mile radius. #19
Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1 mile radius. #17Lose .5 point for every existing PC within a 1.5 mile radius. #7, #15, #18
Lose .25 point for every existing PC within a 2 mile radius. #1, #20
Lost 5 points. 8/23/19
29 Traffic & Parking 3 2 Public Service Review Tier II - Adequate parking and circulation. 8/29/19
30 Security Plan 3 3 LPD Review Tier I - proposed site security system quote - alarm, panic, surv., duress, (minimal tech specs but equip models noted), security professional, access cards, safe (no specs), off-site storage noted, commercial
locks / doors. 8/20/19
Total - Land Use &
Resident Safety 20 8.00
31 Planned Outreach 1 1 Outreach & Ed Plan, 6 pgs. found in Community Outreach folder Has plan. 8/23/19
32 Improvements to Building 3 3
Building ImprovementsImprovement PlanSupport Docs
Version 1
SEV-$94,300 (SEV is for 1120 E Oakland) Proposed Improvements $479,679 supported by bid from the Alan Group, Inc.
487% of SEV 8/29/19
33 Plan to Minimize Traffic 1 1 TrafficTraffic PlanVersion 1 Has a plan. 8/29/19
34 Noise Plan 1 1 Noise & Odor Has plan. 8/23/19
35 Odor Plan 4 3 Noise & Odor Has a detailed plan, but no equipment specs or budget/estimates. 8/23/19
Total Outreach 10 9
36 Stakeholder HistoryProof of LARA Prequal 2 2 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
37 Demo of Regulatory
Compliance 5 4
https://bsaonline.com/SiteSearch/SiteSearchDetails?SearchFocus=
All+Records&SearchCategory=Address&SearchText=1120+e+oaklan
d&uid=384&PageIndex=1&ReferenceKey=33-01-01-10-377-311&ReferenceType=0&SortBy=&SearchOrigin=0&RecordKeyDisplayString=33-01-01-10-377-311&RecordKey=1%3d33-01-01-10-377-311%3a%3a4%3d33-01-01-10-377-311%3a%3a7%3d3a1fb916-24ff-4916-a6dc-9f280125957c&RecordKeyType=1%3d0%3a%3a4%3d0%3a%3a7%3
d2
No conditional denial letters. Has one grass/weed violation which occurred after the stakeholder
owned the building. 9/12/19
38 Morals, Good Order & General
Welfare Litigation History 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Has completed form(s) for all stakeholder(s). 9/24/19
Total Applicant
Stakeholder History 10 9
Total Score 100 74.00
-25-25
-26-26
-27-27
-28-28
-29-29
-30-30
-31-31
-32-32
-33-33
-34-34
-35-35
-36-36
-37-37
-38-38
-39-39
-40-40
-41-41
-42-42
-43-43
-44-44
-45-45
-46-46
-47-47
-48-48
-49-49
-50-50
-51-51
-52-52
-53-53
-54-54
-55-55
-56-56
-57-57
-58-58
-59-59
-60-60
-61-61
-62-62
-63-63
-64-64
-65-65
-66-66
-67-67
-68-68
-69-69
-70-70
-71-71
-72-72
-73-73
-74-74
-75-75
-76-76
-77-77
-78-78
-79-79
-80-80
-81-81
-82-82
December 3, 2019
Zenith Retail Ventures I, LLC
c/o Jacob Leebove
1848 Long Lake Shores Dr
Bloomfield Hills MI 48302
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
I have reviewed the report and recommendation of the hearing officer on your appeal of the Scoring and
Ranking denial of your application to operate a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center in the City of Lansing
at 1116 E Oakland Ave.
I have accepted the Hearing Officer’s Recommendation to add one point to category #37 – Demonstration of
Regulatory Compliance. Based on this recommendation your score has been increased to 75 out of 100.
However, this eliminates the possibility of you scoring in the top five. Your application remains denied.
You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure to the Medical Marihuana Commission within thirty (30)
days of the date of this letter by filing a written statement to the Commission with the City Clerk’s Office.
Should you choose to appeal, your Commission Hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, January 24, 2020.
Commission Hearings are held at the Clerk’s Marijuana Licensing Unit, 2500 S Washington Ave, Lansing, MI
48910.
The Medical Marihuana Commission Appeal will become a matter of public record. The Commission’s review
of the appeal shall not be de novo. The Commission shall only overturn, or modify a decision or finding of the
Clerk, if it finds such decision or finding to be arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material,
substantial, and competent facts on the whole record considered by the Clerk in arriving at such decision or
finding.
Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be
returned. This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
City Clerk
cc: Lansing City Attorney, Lansing Chief of Police
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
-83-83
Clerk’s Statement of Facts
Zenith Retail Ventures – 1116 E Oakland Ave
All items submitted were reviewed for the sections they were attached to. It is the Clerk’s
Office policy to not allow cure on appeal. Please see attached general instructions and original
application where applicant acknowledged failure to attach documents to the correct section
could result in loss of points.
Section 6 – Marketing Advertising and Promotion – Please refer to COL Exhibits: Public Criteria,
Score Sheet with Scoring Insights, and Zenith’s Application Copy with list of attachments for
each section and signed attestations. There was no budget for marketing included in this
section of the application, only information attached to this section of the application was
reviewed for the purpose of scoring this section, therefore Exhibit C was removed. The scoring
criteria for round one is irrelevant to this application, as it was submitted for round 2. The
appellant was given the current criteria before applying.
Section 7 – Tangible Capital Investment Dollar Amount – Please refer to COL Exhibits: Public
Criteria and Greenwave Score Sheet with Scoring Insights. Tangible Capital Investment is
defined as the purchase of property and permanent changes made to that property. It does
not include payroll, charitable giving or sales tax. Exhibit D was removed because it was not
considered in scoring this section since it was not attached to this section of the application.
Section 10 – Financial Structure and Financing – Please refer to scoring insights and scoring
criteria. In the opinion of the Clerk’s Office, the Appellant’s Exhibit E isn’t a line-item start-up
budget.
Section 12 – Plans to Integrate Grower Facility with Other Establishments – Please refer to
public scoring criteria and scoring insights. Appellant has applied for two cultivation licenses.
Points were awarded for each feasible grow.
Section 14 – Number of and Job Descriptions for this PC Only – See public criteria and scoring
insights. The documents provided in Exhibit H, and referred to in appellant’s arguments were
not included in this section of their application, therefore they were removed.
Section 20 – Total COL Jobs not at this Provisioning Center – See public criteria and scoring
insights. PC jobs are not counted in this section, they have their own section where they are
considered. Construction jobs are deemed temporary, and therefore not counted. The public
criteria stated, “Number of additional jobs created by your stakeholders within the City of
Lansing at other medical marijuana facilities types. (Grower/Processor)” Exhibit I was not
included in this section of the application, therefore it has been removed.
-84-84
Section 22 – Net Worth – See Scoring Insights and Public Scoring Criteria. Without knowing the
total amount of start-up costs for a business, the Clerk’s Office contends it is impossible to tell if
the net worth is enough to accomplish their plans. Exhibit F is not a line-item budget which
adheres to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Section 27 – Impact on Neighborhood Distance between PC & Residential Zoning - Please see
scoring insights, public scoring criteria, and COL Map Exhibits showing residential zoning.
Applicant had access to the public scoring criteria before applying. There is residentially zoned
property on three sides. The ordinance source cited by the appellant is not the section of the
ordinance cited in the public scoring criteria, which the appellant had access to review before
filing the application.
Section 35 – Plan to Minimize/Eliminate Odor – See scoring insights and public criteria.
Application did not have equipment specs or a budget/estimates included with the Odor Plan.
Section 38 – Demonstration of Regulatory Compliance – The Clerk does not dispute the fact
that the ticket was issued to 1120 E Oakland Ave and joins the appellant in the assertion that
one point should be added back. The error is due to the fact that the appellant’s parcel is
actually 1206 E Oakland Ave per the City Assessor.
Email Attachments
1. Clerk’s Statement of Facts
2. Clerk’s Denial Letter
3. Zenith Retail Ventures Score Sheet
4. Zenith Retail Ventures’ Hearing Officer Appeal
5. Original Application for Provisioning Center with Attachments Listed and Attestations
Signed
6. General Instructions for Submitting Application
7. Public Criteria
8. COL Map – Distance from PC to Residential Zoning
-85-85
City of Lansing
Hearing Officer Recommendation
In Re:
Zenith Retail Ventures I, LLC
Proposed Location: 1116 E Oakland Ave.
Provisioning Center License Denial
This recommendation is remitted to the Clerk of the City of Lansing by Hearing Officer Amanda
M. Brzezinski, Esq., having reviewed the facts and issues presented upon appeal of medical
marihuana provisioning center licensure denial by ZENITH RETAIL VENTURES I, LLC under
the Lansing Medical Marihuana Ordinance Chapter 1300 (Chapter 1300). Chapter 1300.15(c)
directs that upon notice of denial of licensure applicants may appeal to the City Clerk who shall
appoint a hearing officer to hear and evaluate the appeal and submit a recommendation to the
Clerk. The recommendation of the Hearing Officer in the aforementioned matter is that the
license application for ZENITH RETAIL VENTURES I, LLC remain denied.
FACTS
ZENITH RETAIL VENTURES I, LLC (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Lansing for a license
to operate a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center within the city limits. This
recommendation follows a timely appeal from Appellant.
An email dated October 29, 2019, from the City Clerk’s office was sent to the Appellant
providing notice of the license application denial, having received a score of 74.00 out of a
possible 100 points, eliminating Appellant from top five scoring and the possibility of
provisioning center licensure. Within the email sub-scores and their determining factors were
provided, as well as a link to the Public Scoring Criteria and appeal rights, grounds, and
instructions.
Appellant’s Position
Appellant disputes the denial and requests a reversal of the City Clerk’s decision to deny
licensure on a basis that (1) the Reviewer’s decision was not supported by competent material,
and substantial evidence; 2) the Applicant’s scores were based on arbitrary and capricious
findings; 3) the Applicant’s scores were based on improper/inconsistent scoring; and 4) scoring
methods did not comply with the ordinance.
-86-86
2
City Clerk Position
The City Clerk affirms its position on the denial based on the current Public Scoring Criteria,
Appellant’s Score Sheet with Scoring Insights, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
Appellant’s Application Copy with attachment lists for each section, and signed attestations.
The City Clerk also asserts Chapter 1300.5(b) and the general legal standard that no right to cure
exists upon appeal.
APPLICABLE LAW & REASONING
The City of Lansing’s (the City’s) authority to issue licenses exists within its lawful police
powers to regulate activities affecting public health, safety, and the general welfare of persons
and property within the City. The City outlines the appellate procedure by ordinance within the
City Charter.1
“The City Council shall provide, by ordinance, a procedure for the issuance of licenses
and permits. The ordinance shall, to the greatest extent possible, place the responsibility
for the issuance of licenses and permits under one official in order that persons requesting
specific licenses and permits will not have to contact more than one City office.”2
Here, the City has placed responsibility for Provisioning Center licensing with the City Clerk.
Upon denial of a Provisioning Center License application, Chapter 1300.15(c) permits applicants
to appeal the denial with the City Clerk, who shall appoint a hearing officer to evaluate the
appeal and submit a recommendation to the Clerk. The Clerk will then review the
recommendation and report of the Hearing Officer and render a decision on the matter, which
may be further appealed to the Medical Marihuana Commission for judicial review purposes.3
“The Commission's review of an appeal shall not be de novo. The Commission shall
only overturn, or modify, a decision or finding of the Clerk if it finds such decision or
finding to be arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material, substantial, and
competent facts on the whole record considered by the Clerk in arriving at such decision
or finding.”4
The Michigan Court of Appeals defined the arbitrary and capricious standard within Cona v.
Avondale:
1 See LANSING CITY CLERK’S OFFICE, City of Lansing Charter (as amended) at 8-101.1-.2 (2019) available at:
https://library.municode.com/mi/lansing/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHLAMI_ART8REPOCO_CH1LI_8-
102ISLI.
2 Id. at 8-102.
3 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.15(c), available at
https://library.municode.com/mi/lansing/codes/code_of_ordinances/327011?nodeId=COOR_PT12PLZOCO_TIT6Z
O_CH1300MEMAES_1300.05LIAPSU.
4 Id. at 1300.03(e).
-87-87
3
"'[A]rbitrary' means fixed or arrived at through an exercise of will or by caprice, without
consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances or significance,
and 'capricious' means apt to change suddenly, freakish or whimsical. For instance, a
reason is arbitrary and capricious if it is based on prejudice, animus or improper
motives."5
This recommendation will cogitate the arbitrary and capricious definition above when examining
the submitted appeal for lack of material facts used within Scoring Criteria determinations,
errors, prejudice, animus, or improper motives on the part of the City Clerk in the denial of the
Provisioning Center license.
The City of Lansing has enacted Chapter 1300 – Marihuana Operations (the Ordinance) within
its Codified Ordinances, outlining the licensing and regulation of Marihuana activities within the
City to serve the public purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the City. Chapter 1300 is referenced on the City Clerk’s Public Scoring Criteria, and
will be referenced for application submission requirements.
Marketing, Advertising & Promotion (Application Section 6)
Appellant was awarded 1 of 3 possible points on the scoring sheet. The Phase 2 Public Scoring
Criteria for Section 6 references 1300.05(b)(12)(iii) of Chapter 1300 which states:
“(b)A complete application for a license or licenses required by this chapter shall be
made under oath on forms provided by the City Clerk, and shall contain all of the
following: … (12)A copy of the proposed business plan for the establishment, including,
but not limited to, the following: … (iii)A proposed marketing, advertising, and business
promotion plan, including plans to minimize the exposure of marketing or promoting
marihuana products to minors”6
The Phase 2 Medical Marijuana Provisioning Centers Public Scoring Criteria sheet (Scoring
Criteria Sheet) lists the following criteria for the section:
“Minimization of Exposure to Minors List methods/type, and how to reduce chances of
exposure to minors for each, including a budget and examples.”7
Appellant contends that a comprehensive Marketing, Advertising, and Promotion Plan was
submitted with their application. Exhibit B shows examples of Appellant’s promotional
materials, and a plan was submitted within the Section 6 application attachments.
Section 6 Scoring Criteria points applicants to the language of 1300.05(b)12(iii) where a
business plan is called for, specifically calling out plans to minimize the exposure of marketing
5 See Cona v Avondale Sch Dist, 303 Mich App 123; 842 NW2d 277 (2013).
6 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(12)(iii).
7 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Phase 2 Scoring Criteria, available at:
https://www.lansingmi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7907/Final-Phase-2-Criteria---June-14-2019?bidId=.
-88-88
4
or promotion of marihuana products to minors. Appellant’s Exhibit B materials do have small
typeface at the bottom of the materials stating products should be kept out of reach of minors and
are intended for use by individuals 21 years and older, but no plan or budget to effectuate how
the plan will be carried out is included within Exhibit B for review.
Appellant’s application shows no budget was submitted within the Section 6 application
materials, which would lead a reasonable person to believe that anything in the submitted plan
was speculative, as there were not financial, line-item allocations dictating exactly how the
included plan would be implemented. The application states that for items to be considered for
scoring in application sections, they must be included as an attachment within that section.8
Without descriptions of actions, methods, or efforts by the Appellant to minimize exposure to
minors aside from small disclaimers on promotional materials, it is reasonable to not award
points for substance that does not exist within Section 6 of the application’s submitted materials.
Appellant’s Exhibit C was not included in Section 6 of the application, therefor it cannot be
considered for scoring attributes as Chapter 1300.05(b)(12)(iii) of the Ordinance states a
complete application shall be submitted, and attempts to cure upon appeal will not be recognized
as those efforts are impermissible in general state appellate practice where review available on
appeal is to the record originally submitted and reviewed.9
The award of 1 of 3 possible points in this case was not unreasonable. The granting of limited
availability licenses to best-scoring applicants, in an effort to ensure successful businesses within
the city limits, is reasonable with the City keeping the best interests of the customers who will
rely upon the business in mind, as well as the City’s best interests in mind of a thriving
community including business that will not draw upon City resources due to incomplete
planning, but will instead contribute to the area’s success. The City Clerk’s scoring
determination in this section was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and competent,
substantial evidence exists within the record to demonstrate proper, consistent scoring occurred
in line with the Ordinance.
Tangible Capital Investment - Dollar Amount (Section 7)
The Public Scoring Criteria Sheet references 1300.05(b)(12)(iv) of the Ordinance which states:
“Planned tangible capital investment in the City, including detail related to the number
and nature of applicant's proposed medical marihuana establishments in the City and
whether the locations of such establishments will be owned or leased; further, if multiple
licenses are proposed, an explanation of the economic benefits to the City and job
creation, if any, to be achieved through the award of such multiple licenses. Supporting
factual data shall be included with the response to this subsection”
8 CITY OF LANSING, Marijuana Operations Application General Instructions, available at
https://lansingmi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7848/Marijuana-Operations-Application-General-Instructions-.
9 See Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 232-35 (1987).
-89-89
5
The public Scoring Criteria states points will be awarded for:
“Total Capital Investment (TCI), stated in dollar amounts and supported by factual data,
which will directly benefit the City of Lansing, including all types of medical marihuana
facilities. Consideration of whether facility is definite, feasible, or speculative.
Clarification 6/14/19: After reviewing the total TCI from the Top 20 Provisioning
Centers in Phase 1, we determined the average TCI was over $4 million. Scoring in this
category will be distributed accordingly, starting at 1⁄2 million of tangible capital
investment.”
Appellant provided Exhibit D seeking the award of an additional point within Section 7,
however, Exhibit D’s “Sources of Funds/Financial Structure” was not included within the
supporting materials within Section 7, as such it cannot be considered for review of the Clerk’s
decision against the Appellant’s Scoring Insights for any arbitrary or capricious findings.
The insights listed on the Appellant’s Provision Center Ranking sheet do not provide information
into why an additional point was not awarded beyond “Stated TCI is $4,463,878.00”. The Public
Scoring Criteria above states that scoring will be distributed accordingly, starting at $500,000 of
TCI, but no further explanation was provided on the Provision Center Ranking Sheet. This lack
of explanation does not automatically award an additional point to the Appellant’s score, but
could serve as a basis for finding the City Clerk’s scoring determination was not documented by
competent, substantial evidence to demonstrate proper, consistent scoring in line with the
Ordinance.
The lack of explanation provided within the Scoring Insights on the Provision Center Ranking
sheet equally offsets Appellant not providing any evidence for examination within their exhibits
that were submitted with the application to show the criteria was fulfilled to warrant the award of
an additional point. The burden of proof exists for the party seeking a relief, so maintaining the
points awarded is reasonable as the Appellant has failed to meet their evidentiary burden.
Financial Structure & Financing (Section 10)
Chapter 1300.05(b)(12)(vii) of the Ordinance states:
“[a] complete application for a license or licenses required by this chapter shall be made
under oath on forms provided by the City Clerk, and shall contain … [a] copy of the
proposed business plan for the establishment, including, but not limited to … [f]inancial
structure and financing of the proposed medical marihuana establishment(s)”10
The Ordinance above requires that a complete application be submitted to the City Clerk
including but not limited to financial structure and financing. The Public Scoring Sheet Criteria
also informs applicants:
10 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(12)(vii).
-90-90
6
“Points awarded for evidence and explanation of the financial structure and financing for
the proposed medical marijuana establishment(s) based upon (GAAP) general accepted
accounting principles”11
The Public Scoring Sheet Criteria clearly advises applicants that points will be awarded for
evidence and explanation of the financial structure. The burden is on the applicant to clearly
present both evidence and an explanation, as to not leave the City Clerk’s office piecing together
an applicant’s financial structure with assumptions. The burden was on the Appellant to explain
with effectively presented evidence that “working capital” actually meant “start-up” costs, as the
2 terms are not synonymous in the least, not upon the Clerk to inherently know the detail of
Appellant’s business plan.
Start-up costs are the expenses incurred during the process of creating a new business. These
can be quite different from a typical annual budget, therefor it could reasonably be seen as an
appropriate measure to break them out in their own budget – especially when they are being
reviewed by a city with many interests to balance within the licensing process with limited
licenses to grant.
Essential to the start-up effort is the creation of a business plan – a detailed map of the new
business to be created. A business plan forces consideration of the different start-up costs for the
business. Underestimating expenses will falsely increase expected net profit. The City Clerk’s
scoring determination was not unreasonable; points cannot be awarded without explicit, clear,
evidence and indicia within a licensing application. No additional points should be awarded
gratuitously with assumptions. This stance is consistent in line with previous scoring
determinations and the Ordinance.
Plans to Integrate Grower Facility with Other Establishments (Section 12)
Two of four possible points were awarded to the Appellant in Section 12 of the Scoring Sheet.
The Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria points applicants to Chapter1300.05(b)(12)(ix) which
states:
“If a medical marihuana grower facility(ies) are proposed, plans to integrate such
facility(ies) with other proposed medical marihuana establishments and a statement
whether the medical marihuana grower facility will grow 1,000 plants or more and the
square footage of the building(s) housing such grower facility, and if so, will the facility
contain more than 10,000 square feet of space;”12
The Scoring Criteria states:
“Points awarded for evidence which documents ownership of licensed (or pending
application for) medical marijuana grow operations within the City of Lansing.”13
11 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
12 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(12)(ix).
13 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
-91-91
7
Appellant has not attached any evidence beyond a statement in Exhibit G that says they intend to
integrate with their cultivation facility, which may or may not be already acquired.
The 2 points awarded for the integration with one of the Appellant’s stakeholders conditionally
approved grow facilities – both of whom have pending applications – are reasonable, not
arbitrary or capricious, and competent, substantial evidence does exists within the submitted
record to show the City Clerk’s scoring of applicable submissions was consistent scoring in line
with the Ordinance.
Number of and Job Descriptions for this Provisioning Center Only (Section 14)
Section 14 of the Medical Marijuana Provisioning Centers Scoring Criteria sheet cites Chapter
1300.05(b)(23) of the Ordinance, which states a complete application shall contain:
“An estimate of the number and type of jobs that the medical marihuana establishment is
expected to create, the amount and type of compensation expected to be paid for such
jobs, and the projected annual budget and revenue of the medical marihuana
establishment.”14
The Public Scoring Criteria advises that points will be awarded for providing the:
“Number of and job descriptions for FTE (Full‐time Equivalent) jobs at this provisioning
center ONLY”15
The City Clerk states within the Scoring Insights and Appellant concedes that no job descriptions
were submitted within Section 14 for the more than 6 positions at the Provisioning Center. As
discussed above regarding the lack of submitting appropriate documentation and evidence,
receiving less points than the maximum award is reasonable, and competent, substantial evidence
does exist on the record to justify not receiving the maximum award.
Appellant points to Exhibit H as job description supporting materials, but it is more likely that
Appellant’s counsel intended Exhibit I to serve as job description supporting materials, and
Exhibit H to serve as job creation supporting documentation. Even so, the job description
supporting materials provided were not attached within the correct, corresponding application
section and therefore were not considered for scoring in that section and now cannot be
considered as an attempt to cure upon appeal.
14 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(23).
15 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
-92-92
8
Total City of Lansing Jobs (Section 20)
Section 20 of the Scoring Criteria directs applicants to Chapter 1300.05(b)(12)(v) which states a
proposed business plan shall be submitted with the license application for the establishment,
including “[e]xpected job creation from the proposed medical marihuana establishment(s)”16
The Scoring Criteria advises that points shall be awarded for the:
“[n]umber of additional jobs created by your stakeholders within the City of Lansing at
other medical marijuana facilities types (Grower/Processor).”17
Within the application, Appellant counted Provisioning Center jobs which are awarded points in
Section 14, within this section as well, where they cannot be considered for the awarding of
points. The construction and trade jobs referenced by Appellant are understood to be temporary
and not eligible for consideration in scoring, as no evidence was supported that they were
permanent positions.
Whether Appellant submitted a plan indicating 80 or 100 total jobs, Appellant still falls short of
what other competing Provisioning Centers have been able to provide documentation and
evidence for within their submitted business plans. It is reasonable and in the best interest of the
City Clerk to award points using knowledge gained within the provisioning center licensing
process to date as this is a ranking process for a limited number of licenses. The City Clerk’s
scoring determination in this section was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and
competent, substantial evidence exists to demonstrate proper, consistent scoring occurred in line
with the Ordinance.
Appellant’s Exhibit I was not included within Section 20 of the application and will not be
considered in this assessment for the reasons previously discussed.
Net Worth (Section 22)
Provisioning Centers Scoring Criteria cites four areas as its ordinance source. The first is
MCL333.27402(3)(a) which states:
“(3) In determining whether to grant a license to an applicant, the board may also
consider all of the following: (a) The integrity, moral character, and reputation; personal
and business probity; financial ability and experience; and responsibility or means to
operate or maintain a marihuana facility of the applicant and of any other person that
meets either of the following: (i) Controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant. (ii) Is
controlled, directly or indirectly, by the applicant or by a person who controls, directly or
indirectly, the applicant.”18
16 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(12)(v).
17 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
18 MMFLA, MCL § 333.27402(3)(a).
-93-93
9
Appellant failed to submit a line-item start-up budget in accordance with the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, an American business standard.19 A line-item start-up budget lends to the
recommended consideration of the financial ability, responsibility and means to operate or
maintain a marihuana facility. As previously discussed, there is no way for a reviewer to know
the Appellant’s “working capital” line item was the start-up budget and plan.
Without the inclusion of an industry standard such as a line-item start-up budget, it is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious for the City Clerk to not award maximum points for
missing information and it is consistent with past scoring practices.
The Provisioning Centers Scoring Criteria next points to Chapter 1300.05(b)(12)(vii) which
states the proposed business plan for the establishment shall include the “[f]inancial structure and
financing of the proposed medical marihuana establishment(s)”20
The third citation of the Section 22 ordinance source is Chapter 1300.05(b)(22) which states a
complete application includes:
“[v]erification, including copies of actual bank statements, showing that the applicant has
minimum net worth of $100,000.00 in the applicant's name.”21
The final citation of the Section 22 ordinance source is Chapter 1300.06(b)(5) which directs the
City Clerk to assess:
“Whether the applicant has reasonably and tangibly demonstrated it possesses sufficient
financial resources to fund, and the requisite business experience to execute, the
submitted business plan and other plans required by Section 1300.05.”22
Appellant failed to reasonably and tangibly articulate with granular detail what the expected
start-up costs would be, which makes it impossible for a reviewer to determine whether ZENITH
RETAIL VENTURES I, LLC possessed sufficient financial resources. No additional points
should be awarded when financial clarity and thorough explanation have not been distinctly
articulated within the license application and materials attached within that section. Here, the
record affirms that the City Clerk’s scoring determination in this section was not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious, and competent, substantial evidence exists to demonstrate proper,
consistent scoring occurred in line with the Ordinance.
Impact on Neighborhood Distance between Provisioning Center & Residential Zoning
(Section 27)
Section 27 of the Scoring Criteria sheet directs applicants to Chapter 1300.06(b)(2) of the
Ordinance which states the City Clerk shall assess:
19 Jason Hall, What is GAAP, The Motley Fool (Jul. 30, 2019), https://www.fool.com/investing/what-is-gaap.aspx.
20 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(12)(vii).
21 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.05(b)(22).
22 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.06(b)(5).
-94-94
10
“[w]hether the proposed establishment will be consistent with land use for the
surrounding neighborhood and not have a detrimental effect on traffic patterns and
resident safety.”23
The Scoring Criteria sheet advises that points are awarded considering:
“[d]istance between residential zoned areas and applicant's provisioning center.
Evaluation is based on whether any residential property abuts the proposed location, and
if not, whether there is residential zoning within 1/4 mile of the proposed location.24
Appellant contends that it is permissible to operate a medical marihuana provisioning center at
the location of 1116 E. Oakland, which is true. Permissible and lawful does not equate to
preferred, or deserving of points when Scoring Criteria that is publicly available states explicitly
that avoiding abutting residentially zoned property will result in greater points awarded as it is in
the City’s best interest to place business environments at a distance from residential
environments for both commercial and residential interests. No further points should be awarded
within Section 27 and the City Clerk’s scoring determination in this section was not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Competent, substantial, and blatant evidence exists
demonstrating that proper, consistent scoring occurred in line with the Ordinance.
Plan to Keep Traffic out of Neighborhoods (Section 29)
Chapter 1300.06(b)(2) of the Ordinance directs the City Clerk to rank and score applicants based
on “[w]hether the proposed establishment will be consistent with land use for the surrounding
neighborhood and not have a detrimental effect on traffic patterns and resident safety.”25
The Scoring Criteria informs applicants that points will be awarded based upon a “[r]eview of
[the] location site and any plan(s) the applicant has provided which would minimize the traffic
and parking impact on nearby neighborhoods.”26
The City Clerk cited on the Scoring Insights that adequate parking and circulation did exist, and
noted “Tier II”. No other insight as to what the referenced tier system entails is available. The
fact that a tier structure exists asserts that there is a formula for which the scoring is calculated
from, which would be reasonable for an office charged with balancing interests in a heavily
populated, urban area. Without more information the Clerk’s decision to withhold a point cannot
be assessed, and competent, substantial evidence is not within the record for demonstrating that
singular point was rightly or wrongfully withheld.
Appellant did not include exhibits in their brief of any reviews or plans that were submitted with
the application on Section 29 to minimize traffic and parking impact, or evidence demonstrating
23 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.06(b)(2).
24 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
25 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.06(b)(2).
26 City of Lansing Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria.
-95-95
11
that the parking spaces and circulation of the location would minimize impact on the abutting
residentially zoned properties. Without evidence to support their claim that they were
erroneously denied a point, they have not met their burden of proof compelling the award of an
additional point.
Odor Plan (Section 35)
The Provisioning Centers Scoring Criteria states up to four points will be awarded for:
“Any plan(s) the applicant has provided which would minimize or eliminate the impact
of increased odor on nearby neighborhoods. Please document in budget of
expenditures.”27
Chapter 1300.06(b)(3) of the Ordinance states:
“Planned outreach on behalf of the proposed establishment, and whether the applicant or
its stakeholders have made, or plan to make, significant physical improvements to the
building housing the medical marihuana establishment, including plans to eliminate or
minimize traffic, noise, and odor effects on the surrounding neighborhood.”28
Chapter 1300.09(i) states:
“No medical marihuana provisioning center shall be operated in a manner creating noise,
dust, vibration, glare, fumes, or odors detectable to normal senses beyond the boundaries
of the property on which the medical marihuana provisioning center is operated; or any
other nuisance that hinders the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
City.”29
The City Clerk awarded 3 of a possible 4 points for this section because Appellant did not
provide equipment specifications and documentation of estimates, or the budget for the
equipment or odor plan in the section of the application which is requested within the Scoring
Criteria. As mentioned earlier, lack of detail and thoroughness within the application reasonably
results in less points awarded in the Provisioning Center Ranking, which is not arbitrary or
capricious, and is consistent with the Ordinance.
Demonstration of Regulatory Compliance (Section 38)
Appellant asserts and the City Clerk concurs that a point was erroneously withheld from Section
38 for a grass height/weed violation that was not issued to Appellant’s actual property, which per
the City Assessor is 1206 E Oakland Ave., but was to another property that is actually 1120 E.
Oakland Ave., which is not the Appellant’s property. The City Clerk agrees with Appellant that
27 Id.
28 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.06(b)(3).
29 Id. Sec. 1300.09(i).
-96-96
12
the 4 points awarded should be corrected to 5 points, as the violation was the only issue
withholding the 5th possible point that was initially not awarded.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the following:
1. Appellant’s brief and the Exhibits that were initially attached to the appropriate,
corresponding application sections,
2. The City Clerk’s Statement of Facts
3. The Lansing Medical Marihuana Ordinance Chapter 1300
4. The Provisioning Center Ranking Sheet with Scoring Insights
5. The Signed Application for Provisioning Center with attachments listed and signed
attestations
6. General Instructions for Submitting (a provisioning center) Application
7. The publicly available Scoring Criteria
8. LARA’s Advisory Bulletin on CPA Attestations
9. The American Institute of CPAs Definition of Compilation
10. The physical location of Appellant’s proposed provisioning center at 1116 E. Oakland
Ave.
The recommendation of the Hearing Officer formed above is that Appellant’s application for a
Provisioning Center license remain denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Amanda M. Brzezinski
Amanda M. Brzezinski, Esq., Hearing Officer
P83413
Dated: November 30, 2019
-97-97
Total
Possible
Points
Zenith Retail Ventur-1116 E. Oakland
Applicant Address ---
#Category ---Score Location of material Scoring Insights
1 Ownership Structure 1 1 Org Structure doc, 1 pg., Org Docs folder Has ownership structure. 8/23/19
2 Organizational Chart 1 1 Org Chart, 10 pgs. in Org Doc folder Has org chart. 8/23/19
3 Worker Training Program 1 1 Worker Training Plan, 3 pages found in Other Req Docs folder Has plan. 8/23/19
4 Short and Long Term Goals and
Objectives 1 1 Goals, 4 pages found in Org Doc folder Has goals. 8/23/19
5 Community Outreach & Education 1 1 Outreach & Ed Plan, 6 pgs. found in Community Outreach folder Has plan. 8/23/19
6 Marketing, Advertising & Promotion 3 1 Marketing Two examples of minor minimization without detail. No budget. Less than the ideal number of minor minimization examples. 9/25/19
7 Tangible Capital Investment
Dollar Amount 5 4 1 page Investment Plan Stated TCI is $4,463,878.00 9/12/19
8 Tangible Capital Investment
Own/Lease 3 3 82 pages in Lease with Permission One of the stakeholders currently owns the building. 9/24/19
9 Tangible Capital Investment
Supporting Material 3 3 Support Documents-6 pages Has supporting materials which exceed stated/calculated TCI. 9/12/19
10 Financial Structure & Financing 2 1 Job Creation-Budget and Finance-Startup Costs GAAP operating budget attached. No startup budget. 8/22/19
11 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
12 Integration with Grows 4 2 Integrate One stakeholder has two conditionally approved grows in Lansing. 8/23/19
13 Charitable Plans & Strategies 4 4 Charity $100K per year with signed agreements. 8/23/19
14 Number of and job descriptions
for PC ONLY 3 2 Job Creation More than six (6) jobs at PC, no job descriptions given. 8/23/19
15 Healthcare 2 2 Job Creation Employer will provide medical and dental insurance. 8/23/19
16 Paid Time Off 1 1 Job Creation Employer will provide paid time off. 8/23/19
17 Retirement 1 1 Job Creation Employer will provide 401K program. 8/23/19
18 % of employees at $15+/hr 3 3 Job Creation 100% of employees will make $15+/hr. 8/23/19
19 Projected Annual Budget 2 2 Job Creation-Budget and Finance-Startup Costs Budget submitted with line item expenses and revenue. 8/22/19
20 Total COL Jobs 6 2 Job Creation 80 Lansing jobs at grow and processor. Considered definitive as one stakeholder has conditionally approved locations. Less than the ideal number of jobs, which is 201+. 8/23/19
Total Business Plan &
Job Creation 50 39
21 Financial Litigation History 1 1 Financial Litigation Form Has completed form(s) for all stakeholder(s). 9/24/19
22 Net Worth 3 2 106 Unduplicated pages in Finance Section
$100K in a bank account in the applicant’s name.Has solid proof of net worth.Doesn’t have full documentation of initial start-up and operating costs. No way to determine if net
worth is enough to cover those costs. 9/12/19
23 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
24 Stakeholder Experience
City of Lansing Businesses 1 1 Experience More than 5 years Lansing business ownership. 8/23/19
25 Stakeholder ExperienceRelevant Businesses 1 1 Experience More than 5 years relevant medical, retail or agricultural experience. 8/23/19
26 Stakeholder Experience
Medical Marijuana Business 1 1 Experience More than 5 years MM experience. 8/23/19
Total Financial Stability
&
Business Experience
10 9
27 Impact on Neighborhood
Distance Between PC & Residential Zoning 7 1 https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.
html?id=be0634345255438ba55b14c9b19e9f22
PC Property abuts Residential Zoning on 3 sides (N, E, W) 7/25/19
-98-98
28 Impact on NeighborhoodDensity of PCs 7 2
https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438ba55b14c9b19e9f22
Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a 1/2 mile radius. #19
Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1 mile radius. #17Lose .5 point for every existing PC within a 1.5 mile radius. #7, #15, #18
Lose .25 point for every existing PC within a 2 mile radius. #1, #20
Lost 5 points. 8/23/19
29 Traffic & Parking 3 2 Public Service Review Tier II - Adequate parking and circulation. 8/29/19
30 Security Plan 3 3 LPD Review Tier I - proposed site security system quote - alarm, panic, surv., duress, (minimal tech specs but equip models noted), security professional, access cards, safe (no specs), off-site storage noted, commercial
locks / doors. 8/20/19
Total - Land Use &
Resident Safety 20 8.00
31 Planned Outreach 1 1 Outreach & Ed Plan, 6 pgs. found in Community Outreach folder Has plan. 8/23/19
32 Improvements to Building 3 3
Building ImprovementsImprovement PlanSupport Docs
Version 1
SEV-$94,300 (SEV is for 1120 E Oakland) Proposed Improvements $479,679 supported by bid from the Alan Group, Inc.
487% of SEV 8/29/19
33 Plan to Minimize Traffic 1 1 TrafficTraffic PlanVersion 1 Has a plan. 8/29/19
34 Noise Plan 1 1 Noise & Odor Has plan. 8/23/19
35 Odor Plan 4 3 Noise & Odor Has a detailed plan, but no equipment specs or budget/estimates. 8/23/19
Total Outreach 10 9
36 Stakeholder HistoryProof of LARA Prequal 2 2 Demo of Reg Compliance Listed on LARA website as pre-qualified on 8/23/19 #ERG-001863 8/26/19
37 Demo of Regulatory
Compliance 5 5
https://bsaonline.com/SiteSearch/SiteSearchDetails?SearchFocus=
All+Records&SearchCategory=Address&SearchText=1120+e+oaklan
d&uid=384&PageIndex=1&ReferenceKey=33-01-01-10-377-311&ReferenceType=0&SortBy=&SearchOrigin=0&RecordKeyDisplayString=33-01-01-10-377-311&RecordKey=1%3d33-01-01-10-377-311%3a%3a4%3d33-01-01-10-377-311%3a%3a7%3d3a1fb916-24ff-4916-a6dc-9f280125957c&RecordKeyType=1%3d0%3a%3a4%3d0%3a%3a7%3
d2
No conditional denial letters. Has one grass/weed violation which occurred after the stakeholder
owned the building. 9/12/19
One point added back. Violation was not for this address. 12/3/2019
38 Morals, Good Order & General
Welfare Litigation History 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Has completed form(s) for all stakeholder(s). 9/24/19
Total Applicant
Stakeholder History 10 10
Total Score 100 75.00
-99-99
-100-100
-101-101
-102-102
-103-103
-104-104
-105-105
-106-106
-107-107
-108-108
-109-109
-110-110
-111-111
-112-112
-113-113
-114-114
-115-115
-116-116
Documents Submitted for Marketing -117 117
Documents Submitted for Marketing -118 118
Documents Submitted for Marketing -119 119
Documents Submitted for Marketing -120 120
Documents Submitted for Marketing -121 121
Documents Submitted for Marketing 122 122
Documents Submitted for Marketing -123 123
Documents Submitted for Marketing -124 124
Documents Submitted for Budget -125-125
Documents Submitted for Budget -126 126
Financial Documents - Finance -127 127
Financial Documents - Finance 128-128
Financial Documents - Finance -129 129
Financial Documents - Finance -130 130
Financial Documents - Finance Section -1-131
Financial Documents - Finance Section -2-132
Financial Documents - Finance Section -3-133
Financial Documents - Finance Section -4-134
Financial Documents - Finance Section -5-135
Financial Documents - Finance Section -6-136
Financial Documents - Finance Section -7-137
Financial Documents - Finance Section -8-138
Financial Documents - Finance Section -9-139
Financial Documents - Finance Section -10-140
Financial Documents - Finance Section -11-141
Financial Documents - Finance Section -12-142
Financial Documents - Finance Section -13-143
Financial Documents - Finance Section -14-144
Financial Documents - Finance Section -15-145
Financial Documents - Finance Section -16-146
Financial Documents - Finance Section -17-147
Financial Documents - Finance Section -18-148
Financial Documents - Finance Section -19-149
Financial Documents - Finance Section -20-150
Integration Section -1-151
Integration Section -2-152
Org Docs Section Submission -1-153
Org Docs Section Submission -2-154
Org Docs Section Submission -3-155
Org Docs Section Submission -4-156
Org Docs Section Submission -5-157
Org Docs Section Submission -6-158
Org Docs Section Submission -7-159
Org Docs Section Submission -8-160
Org Docs Section Submission -9-161
Org Docs Section Submission -10-162
Org Docs Section Submission -11-163
TCI Section Submission -1-164
TCI Section Submission -2-165
Building Improvement Submission -1-166
Building Improvement Submission -2-167
Odor Plan Submission -1-168
Odor Plan Submission -2-169
Odor Plan Submission -3-170
Odor Plan Submission -4-171
Odor Plan Submission -5-172
Odor Plan Submission -6-173
Odor Plan Submission -7-174
Building Improvement Submission -1-175